Aluminum soda cans have an interior plastic lining, because the acidic soda would eat through the can without a lining.
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes—most aluminum beverage cans include a thin internal plastic lining (commonly an epoxy resin) that prevents acidic drinks from corroding the metal and changing taste [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and experiments repeatedly show the liner remains when the aluminum is dissolved and that manufacturers have used bisphenol-based epoxy linings historically, though some firms now use BPA-free alternatives [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the lining exists: corrosion, flavor and safety
The lining’s purpose is straightforward: many beverages—especially sodas and some juices—are acidic and would react with aluminum, causing corrosion, metallic off‑flavors, and possible can failure; the plastic coating acts as a chemical barrier between liquid and metal [2] [7] [8]. Industry explanations and DIY chemical‑dissolve videos both show a thin polymer film remaining once the metal is removed, underlining that the beverage is effectively separated from bare aluminum by a liner [4] [8].
2. What the lining is made of and the BPA question
Historically, many can linings were epoxy resins that included bisphenol A (BPA); environmental‑health groups document decades of BPA use in can linings and documented migration from linings into foods and drinks [5]. Packaging suppliers and trade pieces describe a shift toward “BPA‑non‑intent” chemistries and alternative epoxy or BPANI formulations, but the industry still widely uses epoxy‑type coatings and different formulations exist across manufacturers [6] [1].
3. Health, chemical exposure and competing narratives
Public‑interest groups warn about potential migration of chemicals from linings into beverages and connect that to health concerns documented for BPA [5] [3]. Consumer‑advocacy and local groups emphasize lack of labeling transparency and recommend glass or limiting packaged foods to reduce exposure [9] [3]. Industry and packaging suppliers argue linings are necessary for product safety and shelf life; alternative liners exist but switching involves manufacturing and cost tradeoffs [6].
4. Environmental and recycling implications
Multiple sources note that the plastic liner complicates recycling: the thin polymer can reduce recycling efficiency, require thermal removal or tolerate low‑level contamination in reprocessed aluminum, and contribute to microplastic concerns cited by environmental authors [1] [2]. Critics frame aluminum cans as less “plastic‑free” than they appear and point to hidden environmental costs compared with glass [1]. Industry pieces, however, still emphasize aluminum’s high recyclability while acknowledging liner‑material management is part of the recycling chain [10] [6].
5. How people have demonstrated the liner exists
Journalists, hobby science channels and community groups reproduced the finding by dissolving aluminum or cutting and heating can panels to reveal a residual film, and published photos and videos that make the liner visible; these practical demonstrations are repeated across outlets [4] [8] [10]. Community testing and consumer advocacy groups also report that brands are not required to disclose liner materials, contributing to public surprise [9].
6. What’s not settled or missing from current reporting
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, brand‑by‑brand list of liner chemistries in use today; they also do not settle quantitatively how much chemical migration occurs from modern BPA‑free versus legacy linings into beverages under real‑world conditions (not found in current reporting). Sources mention industry moves to alternatives but differ on how widespread or effective those replacements are [6] [5].
7. Practical takeaways for consumers and policymakers
If avoiding contact with plastics or bisphenols matters to you, the reporting recommends choosing unpackaged goods or glass bottles when feasible and pressing for packaging transparency because manufacturers are not required to list liner materials [9] [3]. Policymakers and waste managers should weigh the tradeoffs—liner chemistry, worker and consumer exposure, recycling system impacts and manufacturing costs—when considering regulation or incentives; trade sources flag that changing liner technology requires manufacturing changes and investment [6] [1].
Limitations: this summary uses the provided reporting and advocacy pieces only; it does not include independent lab data or regulatory inventories beyond those sources. Sources used: GPI, KimEcopak, League of Women Voters Chicago, EWG, Non‑Toxic Dad, eHow, experiment and industry reporting, and packaging supplier commentary [1] [2] [9] [5] [3] [7] [4] [8] [10] [6].